• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Make the Case Against Obama with Evidence

Haymarket, Obvious Child, would the two of you mind not tossing around things like dishonesty and such when you have your political leans set as undisclosed? You obviously lean liberal. Own it. Or stop telling other people they are being dishonest with their opinions. Sorry, thats been bugging me a while.

The point would be that the spending spree did NOT work. Currently most economists are also cautioning the Fed in doing anything else to affect markets at this time. They feel it would do more harm than good. The whole point of the stimulus was to spur job creation and make unemployment go down. It was a failure in this respect and has hurt the nation's financial standing and structure.

Saying that all the policies before Obama enetered office are owned by Bush is pretty disingenuous as well. Obama supported a lot of those policies as a Senator and he voted for them.

Haymarket if you want to make a percentage comparison on unemployment I suggest you break out the unemployment figures dealing with underemployment and those that have left the work force through sheer frustration with finding a job. Obama's true unemployment numbers would hover around 16% to 18% if you use those figures and represent where we are right now a lot more accurately.

Lastly. General Motors Paid Back Bailout Loans in Full


Fast and loose with the numbers boys.
 
“I have said repeatedly I will close Guantanamo, and I will follow through on that.”
-- Barack Obama / 60 Minutes

 
from OC


Conservative has educated everyone here to only trust the official stats. So I must use those. And they are what they are and they tell a damning story. Bush nearly doubled the unemployment rate while Obama has held his expansion to under 20%. And he inherited a truck going downhill with bad breaks. Bush inherited one of the best economies in decades and a surplus.
 
And Obama enacted policies that didnt slow the problems or reverse them but made them worse. This whole Bush vs Obama comparison gets pretty stale, when the heck is Obama going to be responsible for anything?
 
OpportunityCost said:
And Obama enacted policies that didnt slow the problems or reverse them but made them worse. This whole Bush vs Obama comparison gets pretty stale, when the heck is Obama going to be responsible for anything?
Click to expand...

That is all Obama supporters can do, look backwards and distort history. Obama has a record, a terrible one that the cult followers continue to ignore. Obama ran on promises to fix the "mess" he claimed he inherited, doesn't seem to matter that he was part of the Democrat controlled Congress that helped create the mess. He then was hired to fix the problems and given a Democrat controlled Congress to implement his solutions. There results show his resume as exactly right, he lacked the experience and understanding of our economy to fix it. His economic policy was and remains a disaster. obama loves being President but lacks the ability to do the job of President. His results are as have been posted but ignored.
 
b hussein obama is going to declare a state of emergency and permanently postpone elections , thus triggering the Second American Revolution in the fight against the socialist police state. I will be at the helm of this fight ready and willing to defend our country from this animal. if we do not assemble against he and the socialisitic islamic pigs we will fall. the revolution is coming he will postpone the elections and we will become islamic slaves if we do not stand up with arms .
 
Last edited:

Come again? Care to point out my dishonesty? And I'm not a liberal. Unless you want to take the path Navy Pride did which rendered his definition of liberal to be Newt Gringrich. I'm not sure you are foolish enough to try that. You might be though. Merely because someone disagrees with you does not equate to them being a liberal. If you maintain that attitude, you're going to get your tushy handed to you on a regular basis.

The point would be that the spending spree did NOT work.
Click to expand...

Depends how you define "work." Is preventing a 20% decline in GDP working? I'd say so. No growth is better then drastic loss.


Actually the whole point of the stimulus was to blunt the damage of the recession. That's the point of every recession based stimulus. And according to the WSJ, it did just that. By allowing states to keep their funding levels at their previous levels, they prevented a massive decline in direct, fast, reliable spending.

Saying that all the policies before Obama enetered office are owned by Bush is pretty disingenuous as well. Obama supported a lot of those policies as a Senator and he voted for them.
Click to expand...

Apparently you missed my 100+ posts where I pointed out how Obama is Bush III. I did this so much that several Bush fans here got upset at me. But apparently you think I'm a liberal. Well, Bush was a liberal in many aspects. That is not up for discussion.

Fast and loose with the numbers boys.
Click to expand...

As are the rejections of it. The idea that GM and Chrsyler could get Ford level funding or even have a reasonable priced sale in liquidation is pretty much rewriting history. Banks would not even lend to other banks for 12 hours. The idea that they would actually fund a huge billion dollar loan package to either is to completely ignore the data coming off of the WSJ. Furthermore, the massive deficit costs from automatic stabilizers ALONE justify the cost of the bailout.
 
haymarket said:
Conservative has educated everyone here to only trust the official stats. So I must use those.
Click to expand...

It's a shame he can't understand them though. I did get a chuckle out of him arguing the US population doubled monthly.

Bush nearly doubled the unemployment rate while Obama has held his expansion to under 20%. And he inherited a truck going downhill with bad breaks. Bush inherited one of the best economies in decades and a surplus.
Click to expand...

Best economies? Not sure about that. Especially since the dot com crashed wiping trillions in equity away. Clinton's surplus was imaginary. It never included off balance sheet financing. And it was based on long term rosy projections (much like Ryan's deficit bill). Furthermore, 9/11 pretty much screwed Bush's chance at actually getting a real surplus.

And OpportunityCost thinks I'm a liberal. Imagine that.
 
OpportunityCost said:
And Obama enacted policies that didnt slow the problems or reverse them but made them worse. This whole Bush vs Obama comparison gets pretty stale, when the heck is Obama going to be responsible for anything?
Click to expand...

And you can prove this how? Did you even bother to read my link? An OP in the WSJ bashing Obama pointed out that his policies prevented a massive decline in GDP. And you think that somehow prevention on a depression level drop in GDP didn't slow the problem? Come again?
 

So, Critical Thought, you raised the question and have gotten a lot of responses. Did you get what you were looking for?
 

How is this a distortion of history?

When George Bush entered office in Jan of 2001, the unemployment rate was 4.2%.
When he left in Jan of 2009, it was 7.6%.
That is an increase of 81%.

When Barack Obama entered office in Jan of 2009, the unemployment rate was 7.6%.
The latest figure for this May was 9.1%.
That is an increase of 19%
 
Conservative said:
So, Critical Thought, you raised the question and have gotten a lot of responses. Did you get what you were looking for?
Click to expand...

Some interesting numbers that the Obama supporters want to ignore. GW Bush took office with a GOP House and an equally divided Senate and thanks to the "I" voting with the Democrats, Democrats controlled the Senate. GW Bush got total Control of the Congress in January 2003. Notice the results from 2003-2007. GW Bush had a recession in 2001 and another in 2008. Democrats had involvement in both. Liberals will love to ignore the progress made from 2003-2007 and ignore that Democrats took total control of Congress January 2007 and ironically the recession began in December 2007 right after the fiscal year 2008 budget took effect.

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2001 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.6 4.9 5.0 5.3 5.5 5.7
2002 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 6.0
2003 5.8 5.9 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.8 5.7
2004 5.7 5.6 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.4 5.4
2005 5.3 5.4 5.2 5.2 5.1 5.0 5.0 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.9
2006 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4
2007 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.6 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 5.0
2008 5.0 4.8 5.1 4.9 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.1 6.2 6.6 6.8 7.3
2009 7.8 8.2 8.6 8.9 9.4 9.5 9.5 9.7 9.8 10.1 9.9 9.9
2010 9.7 9.7 9.7 9.8 9.6 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.6 9.7 9.8 9.4
2011 9.0 8.9 8.8 9.0 9.1
 

LOL...Con....will you ever stop with your fascination and admiration for GWB? The reality is....GWB was a complete and utter failure who drove this country to the brink of economic and moral bankruptcy. Obama is definitely responsible for NOT doing much of anything to improve the economic conditions of this country, but you need to accept the fact that GWB is responsible for getting us here in the first place.
 

Will you ever address the Obama record as it is instead of the Obama rhetoric which ignores or distorts the record? If Bush is a failure with the results posted then what is Obama with a worse record? Can you read the results from BLS.gov or do you need help?
 

How do you explain the numbers between 2003-2007 with a Republican controlled WH and Congress to the numbers from 2008-2011 with a Democrat controlled Congress and Obama in the WH 2009-2011? You want badly to blame Bush but ignore the one constant during the period of time when the numbers declined, Democrat control of Congress?
 

Heck...uhhhhh. I'll have double of whatever it is your taking.
 

I Have.....Obama is responsible for not doing much of anything to improve the economy.....now when will you accept the fact that GWB's failures are responsbile for getting us into this mess? LOL.....
 

Con....you are a hardcore adherrent....to the Bush mantra "Denial of everything.....responsibility for nothing".
 
disneydude said:
I Have.....Obama is responsible for not doing much of anything to improve the economy.....now when will you accept the fact that GWB's failures are responsbile for getting us into this mess? LOL.....
Click to expand...

When you explain the numbers to me since obviously you want to ignore the Democrat Control of the Legislative process. You really have been brainwashed into believing what the media tells you yet the numbers make you look foolish. I posted the numbers showing Bush results with both Democrat and Republican control of the Congress. Why are the numbers so much worse with Democrat control?
 
disneydude said:
Con....you are a hardcore adherrent....to the Bush mantra "Denial of everything.....responsibility for nothing".
Click to expand...

It would help your case if you responded with facts, logic, and common sense to the results I posted. Explain the numbers to me since obviously they are distorted and wrong according to you and the media?
 
Conservative said:
It would help your case if you responded with facts, logic, and common sense to the results I posted. Explain the numbers to me since obviously they are distorted and wrong according to you and the media?
Click to expand...

Con...its been shown to you time and time again...your love and admiration for GWB simply do not allow you to see it. Face the facts....the man that you believe was an economic genius was a complete and utter failure and we continue to pay the price for his ineptness.
 

You really need to get over your BDS and the brainwashing from the media. I posted the results and timeline for GOP/Democrat Control of Congress which of course you ignored. You seem to believe Bush was a King and implemented everything he wanted without Congressional support. How do you explain the strong economic numbers from 2003-2007 with a GOP Congress and Bush vs. the very poor economic results from 2001-2002 and 2008-2011 with a Democrat controlled Congress? I await your answer but doubt I will get one.
 

Absolutely
here is the Obama record on unemployment compared with the record of the man before him - George Bush

When George Bush entered office in Jan of 2001, the unemployment rate was 4.2%.
When he left in Jan of 2009, it was 7.6%.
That is an increase of 81%.

When Barack Obama entered office in Jan of 2009, the unemployment rate was 7.6%.
The latest figure for this May was 9.1%.
That is an increase of 19%

Bush was four times worse than the man you constantly criticize for growing the unemployment figures.
 
Last edited:

Not so. The point of the stimulus as it was presented by Obama was to stop unemployment. It has failed in that regard.
Secondly, the government cannot hand out any money that it doesnt take away from markets. Markets that probably would either use it better or fail and be replaced with something that does use it better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…